Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #29 Fri, 8 Sep 00 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ("Yannick")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:28:04 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:32:48 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >What foolishness, that queston as hand was is it possible for Windows
95
> >to
> >> >run without Microsoft Internet Explorer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, the question was whether IE could be removed from today's Windows
> >> without damaging the product. The answer is no. Microsoft didn't lie.
> >
> >Windows 98 was not available yet. Window 98 SE was not available yet.
> >Windows ME was not available yet. Windows 2000 was not available yet.
Only
> >Windows 95 and before was available, it was Windows 95 that was the
subject
> >of the lie.
>
> I think Sean is unaware that before the injunction preventing Win98 from
> being sold was overturned, there was an injunction which was not
> overturned, which prevented Win95+IE bundles from being sold, as
> Microsoft had attempted to do to get their restraint of trade underway
> and prime the market for Win98.
Which is what I don't understand, since the Windows 95 + IE injunction was a
precident for the Windows 98 + IE injunction.
If the you were in the place of Microsoft in that case with the resources
they were throwing at the case. Once the 98 injunction overturned would you
not also seek to get the prior 95 injuction overturned to achieve total
vindication on this point.
While the minor details could have been different, if one injunction was
valid than they should both have been valid; If one injuction was invlaid
they should have both been invalid. if the 98 injuction was found invalid
but the 95 injuction was valid for minor detail differences; then couldn't
the 98 injuction have been reinstated when by bringing in line with the 95
injunction.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:06:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PZ%t5.135$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p9s9u$8jt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So, the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was introduced to address this
> > complaint. Now you could still only run one copy of a compact or large
> > program but it could handle multiple documents which would be
finctionaly
> > like running multiple copies of the program. When the current Windows
now
> > longer needed MDI for this purpose, Microsoft down played it telling us
> the
> > we did not want it anymore.
> >
> > There, that was the real purpose of MDI.
> >
> > Know your history, know what was, and know what came before, is all that
> is
> > needed to answer my question of: "Do you know what the real purpose of
MDI
> > was?"
>
> I might tell you to know your history as well. MDI was actually
introduced
> in OS/2 first, then was added to Windows later. Your explanation does not
> explain why OS/2 needed MDI.
I did not mention the OS/2 use of MDI, since it was a minor side issue. MDI
programs did not originate from OS/2's PM. The behavior of MDI was
codeified as part of CUA wich developed by IBM and Microsoft; however, the
first MDI style programs were Windows programs even though they may not have
been referred to as such.
For platforms like OS/2 that did not *need* MDI for technical reasons could
also use it for other reasons, but that does not change the reason that MDI
(under whatever name) was first introduced on Windows.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:07:51 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mW1u5.1824$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I do hope MS port IE 5-5.5 to Linux (as they have to Solaris) i want a
> *real*
> browser in Linux not that piece of crap Nutscrape.
Try running IE under wine or vmware.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:15:39 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You are vaguely aware, I think, with the concept "software", right? Did
> you ever stop to consider why they call it "soft"? You've heard of
> "hardware"? Yea, that's the stuff like buildings, right. Well,
> consider what might be common, and what might be different, between
> those two words. "Hardware". "Software". 'Soft', see? Why do they
> say that? I don't think its because its furry, or marked by tenderness.
> Keep trying.
No; it's because it's mutable, volatile, and isn't made of anything other
than electrons.
This has nothing to do with the consequences of architectural decisions, nor
how difficult it would be to roll them back. It just means that you don't
have to go out and start using a lathe or electron sputtering gun.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:17:15 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pa5f8$v33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qNZt5.127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p92ng$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:4%Ht5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his
life.
> > > You
> > > > can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software.
> > This
> > > > is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100
> > story
> > > > skyscraper.
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put
in
> in
> > > > there, they can easily take it out".
> > >
> > > Have you considered RCS, SCCS, CVS, et al?
> >
> > Have you considered that rolling back to a previous version was not
> allowed?
> >
> > The judge specifically forbade MS from offering previous versions,
> claiming
> > them obsolete. MS would have had to completely rewrite existing
> components
> > to remove any trace of IE while maintaining the new features they
offered
> > (many of which were provided by IE, such as HTML Help).
> >
> > That's not something you can just roll back.
>
> Yes, you can, it had been done many times. When a devlelopment project
goes
> down the wrong path you roll back, and then roll back forward on the code
> that did not go the wrong way, and work from there.
And what happens to all the other development since? You're talking a two to
three year process.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:13:22 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:54:04 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No. After Microsoft "cut off their air supply" they likely
> didn't have the funding to continue. Besides, Netscape has
> always been a cross platform product wider than the object
> standards of a mere single vendor.
Wrong. This was when Netscape had 85% market share (Intuit and AOL were
asking for HTML components they could use -- Netscape couldn't provide it
because of the quality [lack of] in their codebase. Evidence as provided by
Netscape executives emails is in the trial record).
Netscape's cross-platformness has nothing to do with supporting an object
model. You can quickly and easily write a COM interface layer if you
separate your code out quickly.
> Now, where are those other nifty "embeddable components" that
> everyone would want to use?
Well, Windows has RichEdit... Netscape (rather, Mozilla) has Gecko. As for
anything else...? Who knows? CORBA et al seem to be making headway.
Simon
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:24:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>>He seems to speaks of WinNT specifically in a UNIX vs WinNT comment, but
>>>as he gets closer to specific problems he becomes more vague "software
>>>failures associated with NT". What does he mean by "associated"? Was it
>>>WinNT that failed or a system built around WinNT? The one incident
>>>described showed Win32 applications causing a failure, not the OS itself.
>>
>> That's the point. You can try to chase down the *billions* of failures
>> that occur to almost *anyone* using NT, and figure its somebody else's
>> fault, MAYBE (though generally you just give up after a while to an
>> argument from ignorance, because you can't 'replace' the OS), or you can
>> recognize that its just generally a crappy OS.
>
>The one incident we have info on seems to show a naive server application
>corrupting it's database and naive client applications depending on this
>database to run equipment. Such a naive design is highly vulnerable
>irrespective of the OS it runs on.
The only 'incident' we have any real info on is the Navy is trying to
use NT, and it sucks.
> [ snip NT vs. UNIX, I don't think either one is a good solution for
> the control/monitoring station, see older posts ]
Ha. Like using a commodity OS with three decades of proven reliability
wouldn't be a 'good solution'. What a joke.
Just because NT can't handle the job has nothing to do with Unix. Your
continuing effort to turn this into a religious "NT vs. Unix" discussion
is arm-waving. NT sucks, Unix doesn't. Deal with it.
>> This makes it impossible to tell whether it is or is not any one
>> component, either the whole OS, or just one DLL, without trying to
>> reverse engineer the entire system at a cost of millions of dollars to
>> fix a $2000 PC.
>
>Bull, people debug Win32 applications every day.
People spend a lot of time tracking down the outrageous number of
problems which *routinely* occur on Win32 system, sure. That's the
problem. Does it make Win32 get any better, or does it just allow them
to get around the particular way it happened to suck most at the moment?
Check the old thread on Windows troubleshooting I had with Nathaniel Lee
a couple months ago, on alt.destroy.microsoft, if you'd like to
understand more about the issue.
[...]
>> He's saying that NT is not a reliable platform on which to base
>> functional software implementations, generally. Its not grand and self
>> serving to avoid components of a system which are known to either fail
>> or cause failure. That's called 'common sense'.
>
>Actually he didn't say that, and you severly misrepresent what I wrote. I
>am not saying WinNT was a good choice, I am saying that we don't really
>know if WinNT was responsible for the undescribed incidents.
I think that's horsehockey. What we really do know is that NT sucks,
and whether the NT code was directly and solely responsible for the
failure or some other thing caused the problem on the routinely crappy
NT platform is not something I would classify as something we don't
know, but rather something about which we don't care.
Spending time, effort, energy, or money trying to figure out why NT
sucks is a stupid thing to do. Let the monopoly do that *before* they
try to pass off their shoddy goods as acceptable products.
[...]
>You may not realize it, butuyou are supporting my arguments.
Believe me, I'm not supporting your arguments. At all. Some of the
fact I'm presenting may be ones you'd prefer to use to support your
argument, rather than flatly deny, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm
supporting your argument, not by a long shot.
>We don't
>really know if he was referring to WinNT itself or a system built around
>WinNT, and if the latter was the problem simply a naive
>design/implementation that would be trouble regardless of the OS. The
>specific failure described suggests it may have been.
Impugning the ability and professional integrity of everyone who
unsuccessfully tries to implement NT is part of the reason your position
is so pathetic. Sure, it 'could' be the problem of the app, the
programmer, the guy who hit the wrong button, anything. So why isn't it
ever that the problem is that NT is a ridiculously unreliable and
unattractive piece of crap, when it comes to being an operating system?
Oh, because its such a nice attractive pointy-clicky piece of crap when
it comes to being a Microsoft product, is that it?
NT is crap. Very few professionals are too dumb to realize this. Too
many, unfortunately, are too dumb to say it.
[...]
>Actually you seem to know far less than you think, and there are a couple
>of valid interpretations of this statement. :-) Naively
>designed/implemented code does not magically begin to work by porting it
>to another OS. For example accepting incorrect input, performing erroneous
>calculations, and writting the results of such calculations to a database
>is OS independent.
Mistakes can be made, but then again, the OS could be an unreliable and
pathetic piece of crap, as well. You can stand on your high horse and
pretend to define by proclamation which ones might be 'naively
designed/implemented code', but that just makes you a flaming ass. Any
idiot can see that when an OS allows apps to fail routinely, and
provides more failures per square second than any other OS, well, then
the OS is a piece of crap, regardless of which applications you
implement on it, or how.
[...]
>Not according to the chief engineer on the ship at the time of the
>incident, the software developer who admitted the error in their
>application(s), or the news agency that originaly broke the story and
>later distanced themselves from it by calling it early speculation.
Nor in the millions of competent troubleshooters who though to ask "So?
What does a database accepting bad input have to do with a *complete
system failure*?" Yes, part of the problem on NT is that it encourages
stupid mistakes by providing naive developers an easy way to build
crappy implementations. That, again, is the fault of the platform.
Just because Microsoft doesn't want to have to compete with *real* OSes,
which recognize that complete and unmitigated support for robust
reliability which is necessary to be considered a competitive OS, is no
reason to point out that NT is crap. The development of this system may
have avoided this 'glitch' if it wasn't trying to use Win32 crap, but a
real computer environment which provides reliability and efficiency of
design and implementation. Maybe not. We cannot tell, you're right.
What we can tell, from this and millions of other examples, and
thousands of instances of personal experience, is that NT is crap.
Why does it bother you when I say that?
[...]
>Nope, I'm not asking for core dumps, and you haven't offered statistics.
>There was only one incident actually described.
[...]
One incident of your stupidity, you mean.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:19:12 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> give me one piece of "evidence" that M$ produced that was valid
> >
> >Everything entered into the record as evidence (you can see a whole slew
of
> >these things at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass) except the video
> >footage, as it was edited to produce in a smaller amount of time.
>
> So you gets all your information from Microsoft press releases, and
> consider everything in them to be perfectly valid, is that what you
> said?
No, what I said was that all of the evidence that Microsoft submitted to the
court and that was entered into the court record is available from that
site.
Asshole.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:20:52 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:01:55 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >>Quicken, TurboTax, anything using HTML Help (which are numerous),
Neoplanet,
> >>anything using a web browser window.
> >
> > OTOH, such components need not be imbeded in the OS to achieve
> > such things. Netscape + BMC Patrol under Sparc Solaris would be
> > a nice counterexample.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I just have to say, THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS SILLY. Citing the
> number of products which do or do not support a *monopoly product*, is
> rather self-referential, don't you think? Simon, like most people
> deluded on this issue, fails to recognize that any browser can display
> HTML Help (or should, if you're going to call it 'HTML' help),
Compression, indexing, footnotes, searching, table of contents, glossaries,
all linked internally. Sure, it can be done with HTML, but it couldn't be
done well, or easily.
> and I
> doubt that lack of a web browser would make a product like Quicken
> malfunction in any real way, though obviously all those wizz-bang
> features which use the browser wouldn't quite function very well.
They wouldn't function at all, and Quicken would not run.
Simon
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:27:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Perry Pip in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:44:31 -0400,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I've already explained why your 'they ought to do an
>>embedded system' is just entirely misguided.
>
>I've always advocated using COTS mil-spec embedded controllers for real time
>control of the machinery and a more general purpose OS
>(also COTS and mil-spec) for user interfaces and other applications.
>How is that misguided??
>
>Do you have any experience working with complex
>control systems, embedded systems, or with mil-spec's??
Yes, though undoubtedly not the same as yours. I repaired such systems,
used in Navy aircraft, for six years.
The point is, there *are* already 'embedded controllers' yada yada yada.
The whole point of the "Smart Ships" project is to front-end them with a
general purpose platform. Unfortunately, some numbnuts in charge
mandated NT, so they haven't been able to get it to work, yet. Big
surprise.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:28:37 GMT
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yannick wrote:
>
> > Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Mark Johnson wrote:
> > > The community is working on scalability in
> > > both directions, had PnP before Microsoft, and is efficient.
> > >
> > Errr, sorry ? are you speaking of "Plug and Play" here, or is there a
> > second meaning to this acronym ?
>
> Yep, plug-and-play. First develop by Yggdrasill
>
> Colin Day
So I suppose that's why I always had so much problems getting my
ISA SB AWE64 and my ISA NE2000 compatible card to work correctly ?
Of course those were so strange cards :-)
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:37:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Hmmm. I know its going to make me a real pain in the ass, but I think
>> its worth mentioning that there being some appropriate mechanism for the
>> lack of competition does not in any way indicate that such mechanisms
>> are not simply market reaction to anti-competitive actions.
>
>Don't you think it's about time you "contribute" to the competition instead
>of "hinder" the competition you want so badly. If you RUN Windows AND bitch
>that there's no competition you look like more of an ass than most of the
>anti-microsoft crowd around here. Given the fact that your posting to
>comp.os.linux.advocacy and comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy using Windows 98
>in your leisure time I believe your quite a fool to be bad mouthing the
>company that makes it possible for your little OEM monitor to create light.
>Now don't you?
No. Why would I? When there is a competitive market (prices will drop
by 1/2, at least, and every OEM will have value-add that will make your
ears wring), I'll switch to something else (or, rather, my company
will). Until then, using the monopoly product is more cost-effective,
because all of our customers use the monopoly product. This is
business, boy, not some school-yard game. Why the hell do you think we
got the federal government in charge. If we wanted to go to the hassle
of making it a 'religious quest for the holy grail', we could have done
that three, five, or ten years from now.
If all goes well, within two years, we won't have to. They will be
coming to us, just like its supposed to work.
BTW, I'm not using Win98; I'd rather torch the PC than try to use Win98.
When I couldn't stay on Win95 (rather pathetic, but at least more
tolerable, as long as you avoid 'installing' any new IE), I demanded
they give me NT. I will draw the line *somewhere*, and they can fire me
before they could make me use Win98, any later version of Win98, W2K,
or, for that matter, Office 2000. Literally.
In truth, I know I'd never have to quit in order to avoid using Win98 or
Office 2000. The truth is, any company that mandates such a platform
does not provide any real functionality that can't be replaced by Linux
(and probably entirely free software), and the effort and expense of
making Linux work is still less than what's required to maintain
Microsoft crapware in semi-operational condition.
Sure, there's lots of companies now using this newer stuff. Just
because its *pathetically bad*, (as opposed to the 1995-era software,
which was merely sub-standard) doesn't mean it doesn't run at all. It
just means that nobody's really benefiting from implementing it,
overall, except Microsoft.
Thankfully, we won't have to put up with it much longer. Who knows, by
2005, Windows might be a competitive platform.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:39:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Well, most people don't know I'd be happy to help, if they need some
>> advice. Feel free to email me. And I hope to be starting a web page
>> soon.
>
>It will no doubt be a page thanking Bill Gates for making it possible for
>your home computer to boot up?
LOLROTFLMAO (and coughing up a lung; I gotta quit smoking...)
About as much as it pays homage to Mr. Tesla, for making it possible for
the electricity to flow within the circuitry.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:34:23 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The help system was an easy call; morons like
> Simon even think that its a good idea to begin with.
Max, you're the moron here. Please fuck yourself with a very long pier.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:33:02 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Note how it is only the browser that is seen as a shareable component
> >> and noone seems to be mentioning any other examples. It's rather
> >> obvious that Microsoft only did what it did to Mosaic to undermine
> >> Netscape rather than it being good engineering.
> >
> >Netscape lost a deal with Intuit for not having a componentizable
browser.
> >Similarly, that's why AOL went with IE.
>
> These are both lies, Simon. I'm not saying you're lying, you're merely
> mistaken. Microsoft lied when they printed them on the press release
> you're reading all your ideas from. Complete fabrications; Microsoft
> had to go through tremendous contortions to 'convince' either company to
> use, let alone exclusively support, IE. This fact is well documented in
> Microsoft's internal email and the transcript record.
Netscape's lack of QA quality:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/feb99/1237/sld001.asp
Why Netscape lost Intuit: (emails from Netscape execs)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/jan99/59/sld001.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/jan99/57/sld001.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/jan99/424/sld001.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/jan99/1418/sld001.asp
Final MS/Intuit deal press release:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/jan99/1424/sld001.asp
How Intuit talked to MS:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/jan99/2080/sld001.asp
Simon
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
